BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 I never said that. But while Dalton might not be franchise QB material, if the Bills did select him, we probably wouldn’t have to wait till 2017 to make the playoffs
Bangarang Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 Just now, BuffaloRush said: I never said that. But while Dalton might not be franchise QB material, if the Bills did select him, we probably wouldn’t have to wait till 2017 to make the playoffs So you’re criticizing Nix for not taking a QB in the top 10 but you also agree with his decision not to as well? Did you just criticize him without actually seeing who the QBs were when he had a top 10 pick?
Lurker Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 3 hours ago, BigDingus said: We always try the "build a strong team around a game manager" approach, and we end up with the same results. I put this on Ralph to a large degree. He was just not going to be aggressive when it came to trading up for a QB. The parade of GMs that passed through his tenure took their lead from him. Did he get more invested in the team in his later, post-SB years? Yes. But did he embrace the risk/reward of getting another franchise QB after Kelly? Nope...
BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Bangarang said: So you’re criticizing Nix for not taking a QB in the top 10 but you also agree with his decision not to as well? Did you just criticize him without actually seeing who the QBs were when he had a top 10 pick? If you keep up this love, maybe Buddy will let you wear his letterman jacket from 1956 Edited March 25, 2018 by BuffaloRush
Fadingpain Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 I don't see the big deal. I mean, it's not like the QB position is very important to the game of football.
USABuffaloFan Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 3 hours ago, DC Tom said: Let's list all the QBs picked in the first 10 rounds of the draft since 1980: 1980s: Rich Campbell Art Schlichter Jim McMahon John Elway Todd Blackledge Jim Everett Kelly Stouffer Vinnie Testaverde Troy Aikman 1990s: Jeff George Andre Ware David Klingler Drew Bledsoe Rick Mirer Heath Shuler Trent Dilfer Steve McNair Kerry Collins Peyton Manning Ryan Leaf Tim Couch Donovan McNabb Akili Smith 2000s: Michael Vick David Carr Joey Harrington Carson Palmer Byron Leftwich Eli Manning Philip Rivers Alex Smith Vince Young Matt Leinart Jamarcus Russell Matt Ryan Matthew Stafford Butt Fumble 2010s: Sam Bradford Cam Newton Jake Locker Andrew Luck RGIII Ryan Tannenhill Blake Bortles Jameis Winston Marcus Mariota Jared Goff Carson Wentz Patrick Mahomes Not an illustrious list. Certainly not a consistent-enough list that it suggests moving in to the top 10 to select a QB is worthwhile. Between the outright busts and the number of QBs who ended up moving to other teams and being successful, there's a decent argument to be made for moving in to the top 10 to pick a "franchise QB" to be a losing proposition, as more likely than not he'll either fail or be someone else's franchise QB down the road. This shows you measurables don't mean everything. They all had those or wouldn't be top 10. Drafting team matters, OC and players matter, Leadership and football smarts matter. Unless it all lines up you lose. A later round QB would probably have failed also on those teams where these QB's failed. The teams sucked! RGII got screwed by Shanahan playing him hurt. A number of these QB's could have made it on a good team but became damaged goods and too late. The really good ones though you can tell they were going to make it. Elways, P Manning, Luck, Bledsoe, Rivers, McNabb they just felt different. I really thought Vince Young was going to be Elway again, turned out to be a Head Case and had serious depression issues. Going and winning the Superbowl is a completely different level, few have done this and those that do have great teams around them.
GoBills808 Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 41 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Or it's that the game's changed that much that it really does depend more on raw skill than teamwork these days. Or we're just over-judging current active players who aren't out of chances yet over historical players (which would not be an uncommon bias.) I mean, I saw the trend, yes...but I'm leery of drawing conclusions against QBs drafted since 2010 or so. Considering the top six in the "2010s" list should be hitting their prime right now as 27-30 year olds, but only one (Newton) is playing at a consistently All-Pro level, so I'd be hesitant to judge the trend as changing all that much based on the current data. If your chances since 2000 are just as good hitting a Newton, Luck, or Wentz as they are getting a Locker, RG3, or...Bortles(?) or Tannehill(?) I guess...I think you have to pull the trigger and if you end up with a Bradford/Winston/Goff so be it.
ColoradoBills Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Bangarang said: So you’re criticizing Nix for not taking a QB in the top 10 but you also agree with his decision not to as well? Did you just criticize him without actually seeing who the QBs were when he had a top 10 pick? Nix could of traded back. ATL gave up a boatload to picks for Julio Jones. He should of known Luck, RG3 were available the following year. We stuck with Fitz. To me, that's the difference from a forward looking organization and one that "lives in the moment". Who traded with ATL, the Redskins and moved up for RG3 and would of had Luck if Peyton didn't get hurt.
USABuffaloFan Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 2 hours ago, DC Tom said: You bolded 14 of 49 names (I would have included Carson Palmer and Vinnie GreenBalls, though, as they had reasonably good careers.) That's a 3 in 10 success rate. Given that the overall rate at which top-ten picks go to the Pro Bowl (around 50%), that's a significant indication that teams over-reach for QBs in the top 10. Plus, in this case what's being advocated in this case is moving up to the top 10, which requires the expenditure of additional resources (picks or players). So basically, the idea is that we should over-reach even more than usual on a 7 in 10 chance of a bust. All on the fallacious idea that you have to take all the shots because "you miss all the shots you don't take." Which is thoroughly retarded - you're using a form of gambler's fallacy to raise on drawing a full house on one pair, because although you probably won't draw that full house, you definitely won't if you don't call and take three cards. You really are the most misnamed poster ever. It could be argued every team that has a shot at Darnold or Rosen could use one soon. Cleveland is the only one with duplicate picks here so they could trade 4 away if great value to do this but at 4 Rosen is gone. The bottom line is the Bills don't have a choice here for those 2 guys. Anything else is game, pick 4 to 10, how much are you willing to pay for Allen or Baker?
Bangarang Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said: If you keep up this love, maybe Buddy will let you wear his letterman jacket from 1956 Making sense and being logical means I love him? Are you always this dense?
BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 Just now, Bangarang said: Making sense and being logical means I love him? Are you always this dense? Im not the one trying to justify Buddy Nix.
USABuffaloFan Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 2 hours ago, Bangarang said: Who should he have drafted? Jake Locker? Blaine Gabbert? Christian Ponder? After the facts no but at the time, argument is the same as it is now. We know nothing really. No for sure QB like Elway, Manning or Luck.
Bangarang Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Nix could of traded back. ATL gave up a boatload to picks for Julio Jones. He should of known Luck, RG3 were available the following year. We stuck with Fitz. To me, that's the difference from a forward looking organization and one that "lives in the moment". Who traded with ATL, the Redskins and moved up for RG3 and would of had Luck if Peyton didn't get hurt. He could have traded back but then he wouldn’t be picking in the top 10 which was the entire point of the discussion Edited March 25, 2018 by Bangarang
Augie Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 I want the smartest scouts and FO, and leave all the mistakes to the other teams!
BuffaloRush Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 4 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Nix could of traded back. ATL gave up a boatload to picks for Julio Jones. He should of known Luck, RG3 were available the following year. We stuck with Fitz. To me, that's the difference from a forward looking organization and one that "lives in the moment". Who traded with ATL, the Redskins and moved up for RG3 and would of had Luck if Peyton didn't get hurt. He trying awfully hard to defend Buddy Nix
Bangarang Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 1 minute ago, BuffaloRush said: Im not the one trying to justify Buddy Nix. No, you’re the one criticizing him for something you agree with. Not sure why but that’s the route your mind decided to go in. Just now, BuffaloRush said: He trying awfully hard to defend Buddy Nix What are you 12?
Boatdrinks Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 10 minutes ago, Lurker said: I put this on Ralph to a large degree. He was just not going to be aggressive when it came to trading up for a QB. The parade of GMs that passed through his tenure took their lead from him. Did he get more invested in the team in his later, post-SB years? Yes. But did he embrace the risk/reward of getting another franchise QB after Kelly? Nope... You assume there is a QB they could have traded up for. Just who was it? Cam? Wasn't going to happen. Sometimes it's just bad luck. The Bills had #3 overall pick in 2011... too bad there weren't many good QBs. The Steelers had the #11 overall pick in '04 and Roethlisberger landed in their lap. There's a bit of good fortune involved here too. Most teams with good QBs didn't move up to draft them. 1
ColoradoBills Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 Just now, Bangarang said: He could have traded back but then he wouldn’t be picking in the top 10 which was the entire point of the discussion It was for the 2012 draft. Bills would of had their own #10 and ATL #22. Instead the Bills went all in during the 2011 season with Fitz giving him that big extension.
K-9 Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 3 hours ago, BigDingus said: No, it's definitely relevant in context of our franchise futility. It also goes hand in hand with our terrible GM's, coaches, and management philosophy prior to Beane. And in terms of this board, we have yet again countless people in the "kick the ahead to next year yet again!" camp...the same people who always say "wait until next year" to draft a QB because they're afraid everyone is a bust if they're not automatically labeled the best QB of all time prior to stepping foot in the league. 100% relevant. I feel the only relevance is to any historical context one wants to ascribe to our drafting history. Period. Please show me how past regimes who ignored past QB prospects in past drafts bear ANY relevance to this regime and these QB prospects, in this draft and these teams. If McBeane are sitting there fretting over the past failures of previous administrations, they are the wrong people for the job. Somehow, I believe they aren't influenced by that in the least. 2
Boatdrinks Posted March 25, 2018 Posted March 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said: Nix could of traded back. ATL gave up a boatload to picks for Julio Jones. He should of known Luck, RG3 were available the following year. We stuck with Fitz. To me, that's the difference from a forward looking organization and one that "lives in the moment". Who traded with ATL, the Redskins and moved up for RG3 and would of had Luck if Peyton didn't get hurt. RG3 ended up a flame out- bust. I don't know if I'd hold him up as a reason the Bills don't have a QB.
Recommended Posts